Best medium bomber of WWII?

Totally agree, though the Beaufighter needs an honorable mention for this raid

EK210 set up to test the Me 210 but flying Me 110 during the BoB apparently proved it could be as accurate as the Ju 87.

As has been brought up already, the problem is what criteria are we to use?

If we are including potential effect/effectiveness of a design then there are many contenders. If we use actual effect/effectiveness then I would have to say it is a toss up between the Ju 88 and Wellington.

Both designs entered service pre-war.
Both designs were produced until the end of the war.
Both designs were produced in larger numbers than any other bomber by their respective users - with ~15,000x Ju 88 and ~11,000x Wellington.
Both designs remained largely unchanged other than detail mods and engines.
Both designs were used for multiple purposes:

Ju 88
light-medium bomber
dive bomber
torpedo bomber
reconnaissance (tactical and strategic)
heavy fighter
night fighter

Wellington
medium bomber (day and night)
torpedo bomber
reconnaissance (tactical and strategic)
maritime patrol & reconnaissance
pathfinder
EW/ELINT
operational training

In addition:

The Wellington had excellent range from day 1 of its service (long enough to reach and bomb Berlin with a useful bomb load), was easy to fly, very rugged and resistant to flak damage.

The Ju 88 also had excellent range (for its size and the mission it was designed for), was easy to fly(?), relatively rugged, and was fast - being as fast/almost as fast as fighters when it entered service.

Also, as far as I have read, both designs were pretty much universally well liked by their operators and crews.

I am sure I have missed some uses and qualities of the two designs.

(If we count the Mosquito as a medium bomber also, then I would say it is a toss up between the three types.)

ThomasP said:

As has been brought up already, the problem is what criteria are we to use?

If we are including potential effect/effectiveness of a design then there are many contenders. If we use actual effect/effectiveness then I would have to say it is a toss up between the Ju 88 and Wellington.

Both designs entered service pre-war.
Both designs were produced until the end of the war.
Both designs were produced in larger numbers than any other bomber by their respective users - with ~15,000x Ju 88 and ~11,000x Wellington.
Both designs remained largely unchanged other than detail mods and engines.
Both designs were used for multiple purposes:

Ju 88
light-medium bomber
dive bomber
torpedo bomber
reconnaissance (tactical and strategic)
heavy fighter
night fighter

Wellington
medium bomber (day and night)
torpedo bomber
reconnaissance (tactical and strategic)
maritime patrol & reconnaissance
pathfinder
EW/ELINT
operational training

In addition:

The Wellington had excellent range from day 1 of its service (long enough to reach and bomb Berlin with a useful bomb load), was easy to fly, very rugged and resistant to flak damage.

The Ju 88 also had excellent range (for its size and the mission it was designed for), was easy to fly(?), relatively rugged, and was fast - being as fast/almost as fast as fighters when it entered service.

Also, as far as I have read, both designs were pretty much universally well liked by their operators and crews.

I am sure I have missed some uses and qualities of the two designs.

(If we count the Mosquito as a medium bomber also, then I would say it is a toss up between the three types.)

Click to expand...

With ref to the parts in bold The Ju 88 was just being introduced and developed in 1939/40, only 12 were used in Poland. In the BoB it was the least numerous of the three main types but suffered the most losses due to accidents and malfunctions. It became a great plane but had a lot of work done on it in its first year. Junkers Ju 88 - Wikipedia

Hey pbehn,

Thanks for the info, I was not aware of the prolonged production start-up period. I admit I tend to count the start of the war as the invasion of France.

ThomasP said:

Hey pbehn,

Thanks for the info, I was not aware of the prolonged production start-up period. I admit I tend to count the start of the war as the invasion of France.

Click to expand...

Even from reading the wiki article I think what happened with the Ju88 was similar to some allied aircraft when introduced, not fully sorted and crew not properly trained.

pbehn said:

For various reasons the Mosquito got favourable treatment not afforded other bombers. Not only did it not use a "power egg" it had its own special Merlins. Conventional wisdom had it that a bomber should have a three man crew, the poor Hampden had four. To make the concept work he aircraft made design changes on everything that went in it, rather than the other way around.

Click to expand...

The special Merlins weren't more powerful than the standard production version. They had a revised cooling system to account for the higher mounting of the Mosquitoes radiators with respect to the engine.

Reluctant Poster said:

The special Merlins weren't more powerful than the standard production version. They had a revised cooling system to account for the higher mounting of the Mosquitoes radiators with respect to the engine.

Click to expand...

And a reversed coolant flow to supply the leading edge radiators. which were on opposite sides of the engine. Not a huge difference but the exact opposite of the "power egg" philosophy.

I wonder what the B-25 list of multiple purposes would look like. I can think of a few, especially the 75mm canon armed version, but I'm sure there are Forum members who are more familiar with the type.

SaparotRob said:

I wonder what the B-25 list of multiple purposes would look like. I can think of a few, especially the 75mm canon armed version, but I'm sure there are Forum members who are more familiar with the type.

Click to expand...

My favourite potential role? Glide bomb and torpedo platform.

Admiral Beez said:

My favourite potential role? Glide bomb and torpedo platform.

Click to expand...

Now that's pretty neat. I thought the B-25 might have carried torpedoes. That's an application I wasn't aware of.

Why was the A-26 used in Vietnam and not the B-25?

Admiral Beez said:

Why was the A-26 used in Vietnam and not the B-25?

Click to expand...

Availability?

SaparotRob said:

Now that's pretty neat. I thought the B-25 might have carried torpedoes. That's an application I wasn't aware of.

Click to expand...

They sunk some ships with those ...

SaparotRob said:

Availability?

Click to expand...

Speed, I think

Admiral Beez said:

Why was the A-26 used in Vietnam and not the B-25?

Click to expand...

Admiral Beez said:

Why was the A-26 used in Vietnam and not the B-25?

Click to expand...

The B-25 was completely out of USAF and USANG service by 1960

SaparotRob said:

Availability?

Click to expand...

Very few B25s had survived the smelters by the time Vietnam got hot. Both B25 and A26 were numerous postwar, but A26 was the hands down favorite. One of the "grey eagles" that hung around the FBO where I instructed flew both during his USAF time. Said the A26 was a real sweetheart to fly; "stable as hell, yet maneuverable as hell, light, responsive, powerful flight controls, sweet engines, an intuitive flyer, and quicker 'n scat." He said he and his crew were returning from a long, hard, week of aggressor flying and bivouac living at a remote base exercise and were so exhausted that they all fell asleep as they were headed home. He disliked the autopilot and always handflew, as the bird would trim up super stable. He was shaken awake by his navigator, who pointed out they had flown 200 miles past their base. Took some "explaining" to the CO.

ThomasP said:

As has been brought up already, the problem is what criteria are we to use?

If we are including potential effect/effectiveness of a design then there are many contenders. If we use actual effect/effectiveness then I would have to say it is a toss up between the Ju 88 and Wellington.

Both designs entered service pre-war.
Both designs were produced until the end of the war.
Both designs were produced in larger numbers than any other bomber by their respective users - with ~15,000x Ju 88 and ~11,000x Wellington.
Both designs remained largely unchanged other than detail mods and engines.
Both designs were used for multiple purposes:

Ju 88
light-medium bomber
dive bomber
torpedo bomber
reconnaissance (tactical and strategic)
heavy fighter
night fighter

Wellington
medium bomber (day and night)
torpedo bomber
reconnaissance (tactical and strategic)
maritime patrol & reconnaissance
pathfinder
EW/ELINT
operational training

In addition:

The Wellington had excellent range from day 1 of its service (long enough to reach and bomb Berlin with a useful bomb load), was easy to fly, very rugged and resistant to flak damage.

The Ju 88 also had excellent range (for its size and the mission it was designed for), was easy to fly(?), relatively rugged, and was fast - being as fast/almost as fast as fighters when it entered service.

Also, as far as I have read, both designs were pretty much universally well liked by their operators and crews.

I am sure I have missed some uses and qualities of the two designs.

(If we count the Mosquito as a medium bomber also, then I would say it is a toss up between the three types.)

Click to expand...

What we are referring to here, I think, is versatility. Certainly one of the most important features of a bomber.

But not the only important feature. Wellington and Ju 88 were certainly highly versatile. Wellington gets extra points I think for very long range. Ju 88 for speed and performance, and bombing accuracy when used as a dive bomber. But many of the aircraft on the list up above fit those categories. Mosquito was arguably the most versatile of them all. But the second factor is, how critical of a role could it play in damaging the enemy? Mosquito could attack almost any target and destroy it.

Wellington had become mainly a night bomber and maritime patrol aircraft by the mid-war, and was no longer being used for Northern Europe after 1942. It was too slow and not well armed enough (good compliment of defensive guns but all .303) and was not on the front line in the MTO either by that point, I'm not sure about Pacific operations. Night bombers were of limited efficacy in actually hitting targets of military import. I think their most useful role was in the Battle of the Atlantic. But it had a lot of competition there- Sunderland, B-24, PBY etc. It's use as an early EW / and as coordination aircraft is also quite interesting and significant.

Ju-88s did everything, and was an accurate bomber which is important, but in spite of it's relatively good performance were proving too vulnerable to do most daytime missions, and by the mid war they were shifting to night fighter and maritime patrol / maritime strike aircraft. They stopped using them as a true dive bomber around the mid-war due to structural problems. Front line tactical bombing role was being taken over by (smaller, faster, better armored and more survivable) Fw 190s. The Ju 88 was still doing damage in strikes as late as 1944 but their most effective role was probably as a night fighter.

Any aircraft which was still being used through the end of the war was a good design, and both Wellington and Ju 88 certainly rate the top ten, IMO. But not the top 2.

B-25
Medium bomber (day)
Strategic bomber (night - by the Russians)
Attack / CAS
Heavy strafer
Flying howitzer
Maritime strike (skip / masthead bomber)
Maritime patrol / ASW
Torpedo / glidebomber
Transport

Still effective against Japanese and Germans through the end of the war. Most effective as a strafer and masthead bomber in the Pacific, though it was also instrumental in destroying Axis airfields in Tunisia, Sicily and etc. Tough and well defended enough to survive daytime raids even against German fighter bases so long as they had escort.

A-20
Light bomber (day)
Attack / CAS
Night fighter
Night intruder
Heavy strafer
Martime Strike (skip / masthead bomber)
Torpedo bomber (mainly by the Russians)

As with the B-25, the most useful role of the A-20 was as a maritime attack and low-level bombing aircraft in the Pacific. Smaller and faster than a B-25, it was the main weapon of the 5th Air Force. But it was an important maritime strike aircraft (torpedo bomber) for the Russians and played a significant role in the MTO both for the British and the Americans. G model in particular remained fast and agile enough, and still relatively well armed, to survive the daytime strike environment in Europe (again, with escorts). Which is saying something.

Mosquito
Fast light bomber (day or night)
Medium bomber
Pathfinder
Maritime patrol
Maritime strike
Night fighter
Night intruder
"Special attack" (Highball)
High speed photo recon
Heavy fighter
Torpedo bomber (tested but I don't think actually used as such)

Basically did everything, but one thing in particular that no other aircraft could do - long range, precision daytime strikes that actually hit their targets, and then survive to make it back to base. Lowest loss rate of bomber command, terror of the Luftwaffe after dark, and also the terror of the North Atlantic.

So maybe another stab at criteria:

Versatility
Versatility - general (how many different roles was it used for)
Versatility - specific (in how many roles did it truly excel. In what was was it the best at what it did.)

Power
Performance (speed, climb, dive altitude, range, maneuverability)
"Heaviness" of bombing (bomb load)
Range

Impact
Impact on the war (how many battles did it help win or significant strategic impacts did it have)
Bombing accuracy (Stuka / SBD level down to high altitude night bombing level)
Survivability (what was the mission loss rate)

Strategic
Sophistication of design (how innovative / advanced was the design)
Cost effectiveness (cost of producing vs. effectiveness in attacking the enemy)
Years in service (how many years was the aircraft actually fighting in the war)

Schweik said:

They sunk some ships with those ...

Click to expand...

With glide torpedoes or standard? I haven't found any records of B25s mounting successful torpedo attacks.